Madhya Pradesh Court April 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.4059 o1. 4.2013. Shri Sandesh Jain for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents. Petitioner has sought the following relief : (i) Call for the case record. (ii) To direct the respondent No.4 to decide the appeal at the earlier. (iii) To restrain the respondent from recovery of the tax No.4 to decides the appeal as the earlier. (iv) To stay the demand vide order dt.26-2-2013 Ann.P4 till the disposal of appeal. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition. Case of the petitioner is that against order Annexure-P/1 dt.30.12.2008, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4 Annexure-P/3 on 13.7.2010 along with an application seeking interim direction,but, the aforesaid application has not been considered till date. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 may be directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner for stay as the re...
U.S. Gubrele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4768/20101. 04.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is conducted in which the Enquiry Officer has given a report that the petitioner is not found guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. This fact the petitioner has categorically contended in the petition. In identical circumstances, this Court has considered that merely because a departmental enquiry is initiated against an employee taken on deputation, he is not to be repatriated to his parent department without finalizing the misconduct. In view of the aforesaid, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed till the next consideration of th...
Smt. G. Usha Rajsekhar Vs. Government of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5450/2013 01.04.2013 Ms.Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms.Surbhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not willing to challenge the correctness of the action taken by the respondents with respect to the departmental action relating to service. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned action in so far as a direction is given for lodging of the FIR against the petitioner. That being so, office objection is overruled on the understanding that the petitioner would make appropriate application for correction in the relief clause in that respect. In case any such application for amendment is made by tomorrow, the same is deemed to be allowed and the correction be done immediately in the relief clause of the writ petition. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within seven days by registered...
Smt. Ashalata Silhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4701/20101. 04.2013 Shri M.K.Sulakhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by w...
Omprakash Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 MCRC. No.764 /2013 1.4.2013 Shri S.D.Khan with Shri Udayraj Singh, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. Shri Satya Prakash Chadar, P.L., for state. Heard on an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.This is fiRs.bail application of applicant, who is arrested on 5.10.2012 in connection with crime no.691/2012 of PS Katni MP for the offence punishable u/ss. 363,366,354, 323,506 and 368/34 of IPC . Allegation against the applicant is that he abducted/kidnapped the prosecutrix and had taken her to Delhi by train and kept her there. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, there is no allegation about rape and the prosecutrix who has been examined in the case as PW 2 in trial not CT No.20/12 before FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in para 12 she admitted that she saw the accused fiRs.time in Court she did not knot who is accused hence he be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State has objected for grant of bail. Looking to the facts and...
Ashok Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2350/2013 1.4.2013 Shri Arvind Sharma , counsel for applicants. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL , for the State. Heard. This is the fiRs.bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.233/2012 registered at Police Station Nohta District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366(ka)/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have no criminal past. They are ready to co-operate during investigation. The applicants are father and mother of the co-accused Sanjay, who got marriage with the prosecutrix Guddi. Since the father of the prosecutrix was not agree with the aforesaid marriage, he falsely implicated these applicants. Prosecutrix is more than 16 years of age. In support of the contention, he filed a certificate from the Government School, Hatri District Damoh. Nothing is require...
Valmiki Mishra Vs. Bhopal Sahkari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5534/2013 01.04.2013 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notices of this writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended that when earlier Writ Petition No.3039/2013 was filed by the petitioner, the same was disposed of with a direction to take a decision prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner, on the representation so made by the petitioner with respect to the amendment in the age of superannuation. Though the order passed on 1.3.2013 in the writ petition, was brought to the notice of the authorities within time, but no decision whatsoever has been taken by the respondents. By virtue of order of amendment issued on 31.3.2012, the age of superannuation of the petitioner is not extended upto 62 years even then he has been made to retire on attaining the...
Sameer Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2421/2013 1.4.2013 Shri Dhananjay Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.332/2012 registered at P.S.Lour, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, nothing has been alleged against the applicant in regard to demand of Rs.1000/- from complainant Mahendra Upadhyay. As per prosecution itself, when co-accused Saddam, Niyaz and Mohd. Ayub were quarreling with complainant after demand of aforesaid money, applicant also came on the spot and assaulted complainant, therefore, no case under Section 327 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. Remaining offences are bailable. The applicant ha...
Naresh Panjwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3264/2013 1.4.2013 Shri P.N.Pathak, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicants are in custody since 31.1.2013 in connection with Crime No.22/2013 registered at P.S.Jaitahari, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections307, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicants that a dispute arose in regard to stationing a Kiosk (Thela) near the shop of complainant Mahesh. When the complainant resisted them then hot altercation took place. It is alleged against the applicant Naresh that he assaulted the complainant Mahesh by an iron rod. Mahesh has already been discharged from the hospital. At the most it may be a case under Section 325 of IPC. No case is made out under Section 307 of IPC against the applicants. Nothing is alleged against the applicant no.2 Veerbhan @ Veeru...
Raju @ Salim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2516/2013 1/04/2013 Shri Shashank Trivedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 22/1/13 in connection with Crime No.78/13 registered at P.S.Nishadpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC and section 7 of Protecttion of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of allegation made against this applicant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release him on bail. Therefo...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »